It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Originally posted by genius/idoit
you know,your post makes me wonder how long TPTB have been trying to keep us weak(for lack of a better word)I mean in midievil times did TPTB take away peoples swords?
Originally posted by dooper
I'm a gun-owning American, and since I'm an adult - that automatically makes me part of the militia under founding fathers definitions.
If this is an example of how the powers that be think, if this is an example of their rationale, and if this is an example of their metal, then I'm not nearly as concerned as I was before.
These guys will drop like mosquitoes behind a fogging truck.
The problem is that folks with actual sense can read the Constitution and understand very clearly what was meant.
My guns are mine.
Why don't you come try to take them?
The people that read and hate the 2nd say, To maintain a well organized militia, and conveniently skip the comma.
Oh well, maybe another thread.
Originally posted by LAUGHING-CAT
reply to post by dooper
Dooper, I've been reading your posts for awhile and I just now added you to my friends list for that last post.
I am a disabled Vet, (nothing too serious) and I got, some guns.
I dare any malinformed, mealy mouth, anti constitution, gun grabbing, do gooder, tree hugging, animals have rights, 1st ammendment waiving (as they stomp on the 2nd), to come and se if they really want to go through the process of taking me from mine.
Originally posted by NWOhereNOW
The conspiracy here is how and why your tools of death will be taken from you. We realize now that throughout history, the manifestation of death was embodied by weapons. From clubs, to swords, to guns: They are all a continua of hand held death machine.
What is the pattern displayed as this continua ever moves to the right?
The hand held weapons become more powerful.... always more power. More destruction. More death.
There is now more power in a hand held rocket launcher than there existed in a 50 foot tall medevil siege machine which threw 300 pound stones. One man has the power of an entire army armed with swords... an entire nation armed with clubs.
No longer do we use wooden clubs, fletchery, swordsmanship, spearmanship, etc.. .in battle. We use explosives projectiles in the form of bullets, bombs, and rockets.
As we eventually come to the end of the age of explosive projectiles just as we came to the end of the age of club and sword - yes, that's right - we move on to other technologies, we move into the realm of photon based weaponry, sound based weaponry, and other wave based weaponry.
Do you really think you'll ever get to hold a nuclear side arm?
NO! The power will never be available in such a form. Weapons will be long gone before then.
Title 10 of the US Code states:
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
The second amendment CLEARLY STATES that it is about a well regulated (i.e organized) militia.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The purpose of a militia is to BE CALLED TO ARMS when the the State, or Government requests you. If you are not willing to be called to arms, then you are a TRAITOR and COWARD and DO NOT DESERVE TO OWN A WEAPON.
If you ARE willing to be called to arms then... JOIN THE ORGANIZED MILITIA.
Further, it is settled law that the second amendment only applies to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT for the purposes of RESTRICTING ORGANIZED STATE MILITIA.
The Federal Government CAN NOT infringe on a STATE'S RIGHT TO ARM IT'S WELL ORGANIZED MILITIA for the security of a free state.... this has NO BEARING on the unorganized militia as illustrated in the federal law which BANS INDIVIDUAL FELONS from owning firearms.
Unorganized individuals DO NOT protect the security of the state so get the fantasy idea out of your head that the Chinese are going to invade, only to be pushed back by a bunch of rednecks, gang members, and whoever else who owns a few weapons... nor will a bunch of unorganized, conspiracy theorists with guns push back the standing active-duty military services when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT invades the states! ROFL.
This doesn't mean that a STATE CAN NOT impose it's own laws and regulations for private firearm ownership for it.
We will take your death machines and your desire for death and destruction from you by conquest or consent.
You lost long ago, before any of this was started. The seeds to take your "right" to bear arms was planted long in the past: you never had one!
Give them up, while you can.
If you wait for us to take them, you will suffer the consequence of death.
This is what our FEMA camps are for. It is for those who are found with weapons after we decree that it is illegal to own them. You will be given 24 hours to turn in all of your weapons. After that time limit is up, you have no more amnesty. You will be considered a domestic terrorist and will be taken to concentration facilities upon your capture. Anyone reported using a weapon (in the woods, hunting) will be taken and placed in a camp as well.
If you wait for us to take them, you will suffer the consequence of death.
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
I'll tell you here what I told you in the other thread. You misquote one piece of the law and say that the militia is the standing army and I told you point blank that your moronic reply is wrong.
I quote:
Tell me Mr. Scholar Just who are the militia. Its the people you moron, Always has been always will be. No standing Army can be a militia. maybe you need to actually look up what militia means. It means CITIZEN Armies. Think what you like but your never going to disarm us.
Zindo
Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by NWOhereNOW
NWO, one thing about your posts. It's "we" this, and "'we" that. You aren't up to it yourself? Of course you aren't. This attempt to elicit an overly emotional response is really weak. However, I'll play.
The trick is knowing when to do what. Had an enemy battalion hunting us for two days. One of them stepped right between my face and my rifle.
My sole motivation would not be concerned with what I hold valuable, but what my opponents hold valuable. Life, family, friends, the usual. What are their weaknesses? What are their habits? What can they not afford to lose? What do they fear? What can they not stand the thought of losing? That is what makes them weak, vulnerable, creatures of habit, and very predictable.
I am former Special Forces, and if you think I'll do the first thing you'd expect, you're in for a big disappointment. I'm too aware of the dangers. I follow no anticipated line of approach. Indirect tactics are as numerous as there are stars in the sky, and they cannot be defended.
I would go where I wanted. When I wanted. I would see and observe who I wanted. And I would do exactly as I wanted. I would pick the time, the place, the weather, the manner, and come to think of it, it would just all around best to leave me the hell alone.
Because I don't forget.
But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interest of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If therefore the loud clamorous against the plan of the convention on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this state. But the truth is, that both of them contain all, which in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.